TG 2006 Holdings LLC v. Wrike Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: TG--2006 Holdings, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Wrike, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 3:24-cv-00214, N.D. Tex., Filed 01/26/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Northern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s project management software platform infringes patents related to a system for tracking business information using a hierarchical folder display where visual attributes change to signal status updates based on time-based triggers.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns software for business process and project management, a field where visualizing complex workflows and task statuses is a central feature for users.
• Key Procedural History: Both patents-in-suit descend from the same original application filed in 2004. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,454,741, "System and method for tracking information in a business environment", issued Sep. 27, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies that tracking business information can be "time consuming and confusing" and states that a system for tracking such information "in a visually clear and meaningful way is desired" (’741 Patent, col. 1:15-24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a software system that uses a hierarchical "tree view" of folders to organize tasks or projects. The system associates time triggers with these items. When an event occurs, such as a time deadline being missed, the visual attributes of the folder containing the item (the "child folder") and any folder containing that folder (the "parent folder") are automatically altered to provide a visual alert that cascades up the hierarchy (’741 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:12-29). This allows a user to identify a problem at a high level without needing to inspect every individual sub-task (’741 Patent, col. 3:1-7).
• Technical Importance: The described approach seeks to simplify the management of complex, multi-step processes by propagating status alerts up a visual hierarchy, making it easier to spot delays or issues in interdependent tasks (’741 Patent, col. 3:1-7).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "exemplary claims" identified in an exhibit not attached to the pleading (Compl. ¶12). The patent contains one independent claim.
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • establishing a parent folder and an associated child folder
  • establishing an "in-house product"
  • associating the in-house product with at least one task, and associating products and labor codes with that task
  • associating a "first alert interval" and a "time trigger" with the task and in-house product
  • starting and monitoring a system clock
  • changing the color of the child folder when the system time meets or exceeds the alert interval
  • changing the color of the parent folder in response to the child folder's color change

U.S. Patent No. 9,805,323, "System and method for tracking information in a business environment", issued Oct. 31, 2017

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’741 Patent, this patent addresses the same problem of making complex business information tracking more visually intuitive (’323 Patent, col. 1:15-24).
• The Patented Solution: The ’323 Patent describes the same core solution: a hierarchical folder system where status-indicating visual changes to a child folder are propagated to its parent folder based on time-based triggers associated with a task (’323 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:12-29). The claims use slightly different, and in some ways broader, terminology than the '741 Patent.
• Technical Importance: The technical importance is identical to that of the ’741 Patent, focusing on simplifying the monitoring of complex workflows through cascading visual alerts.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "exemplary claims" identified in an exhibit not attached to the pleading (Compl. ¶21). The patent contains two independent claims (1 and 8).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • establishing a parent folder and an associated child folder
  • correlating the child folder with a "time critical task"
  • associating a "first alert interval" with the task
  • starting and monitoring a system clock
  • changing an "attribute" of the child folder when the system time meets or exceeds the alert interval
  • changing an "attribute" of the parent folder when the child folder's attribute changes
• Independent Claim 8 is substantively similar to Claim 1 of the ’741 Patent, explicitly requiring the changing of the "color" of the parent and child folders.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" but does not explicitly name them in the body of the complaint, instead referencing external charts (Compl. ¶¶12, 21). Based on the defendant's business, the accused instrumentalities are understood to be the project and work management software services offered by Wrike, Inc.
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide any specific factual allegations describing the technical functionality of the accused Wrike products. It alleges that the products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit and incorporates by reference external claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 3 and 4) that were not attached to the filed complaint (Compl. ¶¶17-18, 26-27). As a result, the complaint itself provides no detail on the operation of the accused products. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes by making, using, selling, and offering for sale its products, and also by its employees' internal testing and use of those products (Compl. ¶¶12-13, 21-22). The pleading states that infringement allegations are detailed in claim charts provided as Exhibits 3 and 4 (Compl. ¶¶17, 26). As these exhibits were not included with the complaint, a detailed element-by-element analysis based on the plaintiff's specific theories is not possible. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of infringement allegations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’741 Patent

• The Term: "in-house product"
• Context and Importance: This term appears central to Claim 1 of the ’741 Patent. Its construction is critical because the patent’s examples describe an "in-house product" (IHP) in a manufacturing context (e.g., something a company "manufactures" using "production subassemblies"), while the accused instrumentality is a software-as-a-service platform for general project management (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 17; ’741 Patent, col. 3:31-34). Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the claim scope is limited to tangible goods or manufacturing processes, or if it can be read more broadly to cover intangible work products like a software project or task list.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's summary describes tracking "tasks, events or conditions in a business enterprise," which is not explicitly limited to manufacturing (’741 Patent, col. 2:27-29).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly refers to an "in house product" as something a company "manufactures," and provides examples involving "production subassemblies," "inventory and supplies," and "shipping of end-products to customers," suggesting a focus on physical goods and supply chains (’741 Patent, col. 2:38-44; col. 3:31-34).

For the ’323 Patent

• The Term: "attribute"
• Context and Importance: Independent Claim 1 of the ’323 Patent recites changing an "attribute" of the parent and child folders, whereas the patent's other independent claim (Claim 8) and several dependent claims (e.g., Claims 2-7) specify particular types of attributes like "color," "visual," "animation," "textual," "size," and "audible." The definition of "attribute" will be key to the scope of Claim 1.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that "attribute" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning as any characteristic or quality. Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, the broader term in the independent claim should not be limited to the specific examples listed in the dependent claims.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that the specification's consistent focus on visual attributes, particularly color changes, should inform and potentially limit the scope of "attribute" to the types of visual or sensory changes disclosed (’323 Patent, col. 3:10-12, col. 4:11-13).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement based on post-suit conduct. It claims that "at least since being served by this Complaint," Defendant knowingly induces infringement by selling its products and distributing "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶15-16, 24-25).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint asserts that service of the complaint itself provides Defendant with "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" (Compl. ¶¶14, 23). It further alleges that Defendant's continued infringement despite this knowledge supports a claim for enhanced damages and a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would permit an award of attorney's fees (Compl. ¶¶15, 24; p. 7).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "in-house product" from the ’741 Patent, which is described in the specification with examples from physical product manufacturing, be construed broadly enough to read on the intangible tasks and projects managed within Defendant’s software-as-a-service platform?
• A second key issue will turn on claim construction and scope: does the general term "attribute" in Claim 1 of the ’323 Patent encompass any change in folder properties, or is its meaning limited by the specification's specific examples of visual and audible alerts, potentially creating a non-infringement argument for accused features that fall outside those examples?
• An initial procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: given that the complaint's infringement allegations rely entirely on incorporating by reference external exhibits that were not filed, a court may have to determine whether the complaint, on its face, contains sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief under the "Twombly/Iqbal" standard.